Severe storm and hurricane damage causes and sequence of destruction are continually disputed by various entities, including insurance companies and law firms. Reliable analysis of wind versus flood damage sequence in shore homes is not possible, resulting in insurance claim disputes. For example, insurance recovery for damage to a structure caused first by wind, and then by wave is typically treated differently from damage to a structure caused first by wave and then by wind. Determining how much damage was caused by wind versus by wave, as well as the sequence of events, is the subject of many disputes with uncertain outcomes. Further, the post-storm evidence is complicated by damage or loss caused by post storm events, such as looting and/or vandalism. Disputes must be resolved using post-storm evidence as well as experts and modeling. Such “after the fact” data, expert opinions, and modeling are currently unreliable.
Applicant has discovered a need for a creating real-time data throughout and after a severe weather event. If possible to safely collect such data, then the data would serve to prove damage causation and the sequence of destruction. Applicant discovered that it is not obvious how to accomplish this. For example, simply placing a camera in a weatherproof casing does not reliably solve the problem. The target structures to be monitored are apt to be destroyed by the weather event. This means that any structure supporting a camera device will be under similar environmental conditions and is also apt to be destroyed. Further, severe weather events are unpredictable in time and geography. There is limited choice in structure for supporting a camera—as there is little time to build a structure once a particular target structure is determined to be in the path of a severe weather event. Choices are generally limited to other existing structures. This means that the solution requires a way to easily adapt a camera mount to secure to an arbitrary existing structure, while also enabling the camera to withstand through an otherwise catastrophic severe weather event. Given that the structure holding such a camera is apt to also be scattered and/or destroyed, such a camera system must also be able to survive and be recoverable. Another problem is that many cameras supplement ambient lighting conditions by casting infra-red light for enhancement and/or focusing. Under severe weather conditions, this active enhancement fails due to reflections off rain and/or off the sight through a protective housing. Further, wired and wireless communication systems, and grid-based power systems, are likely to be unavailable or useless within and during the severe weather event. This presents the additional complication that such a camera system must be able to operate independently of power grids and communication networks. Up to two or three days of power may be required. This causes a cascading problem in that such a camera system must be able to “stay on target”, that is, to continue its aim on the target structure throughout the severe weather event, in spite of wind and vibrations caused by the severe weather event. The system must exhibit a level of robustness under various aerodynamic conditions while incorporating structural components to addresses these competing functional requirements. Additionally, surge and floodwater could cause damage such a system if not made waterproof. It becomes less and less obvious how to structure an independently powered camera system that can meet all these requirements (independence, aim, recovery, vibration, power, weatherproof, waterproof, data capture, survivability, ability to secure to an arbitrary existing structure, sensitivity under ambient light conditions, etc) under the wind and rain load conditions of a severe weather event, especially in a hurricane.
Applicant further discovered that securely mounting a camera to an arbitrary existing structure creates a problem in aiming the camera at the target structure that is to be monitored. Positive and actual verification that the camera is capturing images of the target structure, and is not mis-aimed, requires some sort of verification after the system is secured to the supporting structure, but without imparing the windload footprint, without impairing the power usage, and without disrupting the secured aim.
Underwater cameras in housings are known. These devices, while waterproof, are typically aimed at objects in real time and do not have to run autonomously fixed on a structure that is potentially undergoing destruction. These devices, further, are not subject to the destructive forces of a landfall weather event and exist in many examples with external powering and cabling.
Wildlife cameras that run autonomously are known. These devices, while self-powered and self-contained, are in many cases not designed for continuous image capture over long periods of time and are not designed to run autonomously fixed on a structure that is potentially undergoing destruction. These devices are designed to remotely activate from movement and include infra-red light enhancement, both of which prevent proper operation to capture storm damage. These devices, further, are not subject to the destructive forces of a landfall weather event. The problem with remote monitoring devices is that they are not hurricane proof and they are not intended for such use.